STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused respondent Jamal was tried for offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nasirabad. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused respondent beyond doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence charged with.

(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

(3.) As per the prosecution case, the accused respondent was found selling adulterated milk. PW1 Inderjeet Singh, Food Inspector took samples of cow milk from the accused respondent and after observing necessary formalities, sent the sample of cow milk for analysis to the Public Health Laboratory. The Analyst examined the milk and submitted report Ex. P7. This report shows that there was 4.3% fat content and 7.64% solid non-fat in the sample of cow milk. The Analyst of Public Health Laboratory opined that "this sample of cow's milk is adulterated as it does not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, on the application of accused respondent, second sample of the cow milk was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The test report Ex. P15 submitted by the Director, Central Food Laboratory indicates that the sample contained milk fat (Gerber method) to the extent of 4.0% and milk solids not fat to the extent of 7.4%. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the standard of fate in the cow milk is 3.5%, whereas, on analysis the fate in the sample of cow milk was found to be 4.0%. Thus, only 0.5% fate was found to be on higher side as against the prescribed standard. The solid not fat was found to be on lessor side. According to the report Ex. PI 5, solid not fate in the sample of cow milk was 7.4%, whereas the standard fate as has been prescribed under the PFA Rules is 8.5%. Thus the solids not fate contents were less by 1.1% as compared to the standard prescribed. Generally, on mixing water with the milk, the milk got adulterated. If the milk is adulterated, the extent of fate is been a to be less than the prescribed standard. The milk can be said to be adulterated only when fate and solid not fate both are found to be on lessor side. In the instant case, the extent of fate in the sample of cow milk was in excess to the extent of 0.5%, while the solid note- fate was found to be less by 1.1%. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused respondent was guilty of selling adulterated milk. The learned trial court after considering every aspect of the matter and relying upon the case law cited at the bar has rightly come to the conclusion that the milk has not been found to be adulterated. The judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused respondent of the offence charged with, therefore, calls for no interference.